Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, C.J.I., K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Kiran – Appellant
Versus
Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3867 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8169 of 2025)
Decided on : 01-09-2025
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 18 and 3 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 [Section 482 of BNSS] – Pre-arrest bail – Grant of – FIR registered under Sections 118 (1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act, 1989 – In relation to any case involving arrest of a person who is facing accusation about committing offence under this Act, protection of Section 438, Cr.P.C. would not be available – Legislature has taken away benefit of anticipatory bail in respect of arrest for offences alleged under SC/ST Act – Bar in Section 18 of SC/ST Act would operate – Provisions of Section 18 underscores Constitutional idea of availing social justice and to ensure same pedestal for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community people with other classes in society – In a given case where on face of it offence under Section 3 of Act is found to have not been made out and that accusations relating to commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, Court has room to exercise discretion to grant anticipatory bail to accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. – Non-making of prima facie case about commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where Court can arrive at such a conclusion in first blush itself or by way of first impression upon very reading of averments in FIR – Contents and allegations in FIR would be decisive in this regard – In reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for Court to travel into evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor Court could advert to conduct mini trial – Anticipatory bail granted by overlooking and disregarding bar of Section 18 of Act was a clear illegality and jurisdictional error committed by High Court – Order of High Court could not be sustained in eye of law – Impugned judgment of High Court as well as of Revisional Court set aside and anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 1 stands cancelled. (Paras 5.2, 5.7.1, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
By way of present appeal, what is called in question is judgment and order dated 29.04.2025 of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.201 of 2025, whereby High Court allowed the pre-arrest bail to respondent No.1 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was refused by Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda.
Findings of Court:
Observations and findings recorded in this judgment are of prima facie nature, limited for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of anticipatory bail. Trial shall proceed independently on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations herein.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Supreme Court clarified that in cases involving arrest under the SC/ST Act, 1989, the protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (anticipatory bail) is not available. The legislature has explicitly taken away this benefit for offences under this Act, and Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar to applying Section 438 Cr.P.C. in such cases (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is constitutional and aims to protect vulnerable communities from threats, intimidation, and obstruction in pursuing justice, particularly given the social context of these offences (!) (!) .
While the bar is generally absolute, there is a limited exception where the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is not prima facie made out, or the allegations lack sufficient merit on the face of the FIR. In such cases, the Court may exercise discretion to grant anticipatory bail, based solely on the contents and allegations in the FIR, without delving into evidentiary details or conducting a mini-trial (!) (!) .
The specific facts of the case involved allegations that the accused used casteist slurs, assaulted the complainant and his family with iron rods, threatened to burn their house, and committed acts that clearly established a caste nexus. The incident took place in a public place within view, which supports the prima facie case for offences under the SC/ST Act (!) (!) .
The Court found that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail by overlooking the statutory bar imposed by Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The order was deemed illegal and a jurisdictional error, leading to the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the observations made in the judgment are of a prima facie nature, intended solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application. The trial shall proceed independently and on its own merits, uninfluenced by these observations (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the order granting anticipatory bail was set aside, reaffirming the principle that in offences under the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail is generally not permissible unless the allegations are prima facie unfounded (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
1.1 With the consent of learned counsels for the parties and upon their joint request, the appeal was taken up for final hearing today.
2. By way of present appeal, what is called in question is judgment and order dated 29.04.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.201 of 2025, whereby the High Court allowed the pre-arrest bail to respondent No.1 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda.
3. FIR No.255/2024 came to be registered by the appellant-complainant with the Paranda Police Station, District Dharashiv on 26.11.2024 against accused-respondent No.1 herein and others in respect of alleged commission of offenses punishable under Sections 118 (1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3.1 The relevant and material part of the contents of the said FIR is extracted below.
Then at 11:20 in the morning, my village’s known, namely Rajkumar Jain, Jaykumar Jain, Bharatesh Awani, Jayghosh Jain, Kishore Awani, Vaibhav Awani, Nabiraj Awani, Bahubali Masalkar, Jitendra Wasgadekar, Anil Wasgadekar, Ranjit Rajkumar Jain, Jagdish Jain, all residents of Kapilapuri (all Jains), came in front of our house. At that time, Rajkumar Jain said to me, "Mangtyano, you have become much arrogant", you are staying in the village and voting against me, so he hit me on the head and back with an iron rod." At that time, I fell down. After that, Kishore Jain and Vaibhav Awani entered my house, pushed my mother Mohini and aunt Rekha, grabbed the saree of mother Mohini and pulled it, threatened that "Mangtyano, you have become arrogant, we will not let you stay in the village, we will burn your houses," beat them with an iron rod and even punched them giving internal injuries. In it, a one-tola gold mangalsutra from mother Mohini's fortune necklace fell somewhere in the scuffle. The household utensils were damaged by the rioters, causing total damage to our household items.
Seeing us being beaten up, my friend Yashwant Bodre from the village came to the house to resolve the dispute. Rajkurhar Jain also said to him that you Ramoshi have also become arrogant, that you voted for someone else in yesterday's assembly elections without listening to us; so he beat Yashwant on the left hand and back with an iron rod in his hand. At that time, some of them had petrol bottle in their hands and were shouting and threatening repeatedly that they would burn our houses and not let us stay in the village. Due to the noise of this commotion, three of our villagers, Avinash Masgude, Appa Masgude, Omkar Mane, came to the house and rescued us from the clutches of these men. After that, when approached to the Paranda police station to file a complaint, the police immediately gave us a letter for medical treatment and sent us to the Paranda Sub-District Hospital for medical treatment.
On 25.11.2024 between 11:00 AM to 11.20 AM, the names of Rajkumar Jain, Jaykumar Jain, Bharatesh Awani, Jayghosh Jain, Kishore Awani, Vaibhav Awani, Nabiraj Awani, Bahubali Masalkar, Jitendra Wasgadekar, Anil Wasgadekar, Ranjeet Rajkumar Jain, Jagdish Jain, all residents of Kapilapuri, angry that I voted against them in yesterday's assembly elections
Pre-arrest bail – In relation to any case involving arrest of a person who is facing accusation about committing offence under SC/ST Act,1989, protection of Section 438, Cr.P.C. would not be availabl....
Section 18 SC/ST Act bars pre-arrest bail if prima facie offence made out; here, caste-motivated confinement, beating of minor scheduled caste victim for touching house constitutes such offence.
The SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail when prima facie offences are established, emphasizing the protection of individuals from caste-based discrimination.
The court established that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases where prima facie offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act are made out.
While considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, High Court has to balance two interests: i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of Crimin....
provision of Section 438 Cr. P.C. shall be available to an accused for anticipatory bail for alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, if the accused/applicant is ab....
Point of law: Section 8(c) provides that the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
